Observation = Ego?

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
[N.B. This is the forum that was called ‘Exploring Buddhism’. The new name simply describes it better.]
User avatar
Grigoris
Site Admin
Posts: 20137
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Observation = Ego?

Post by Grigoris » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:20 am

So, to sum up and answer the original question "Observation = Ego?".

No, PERCEPTION =/= Ego.

Perception (sanna/samja) is just one of the skandha that we project the idea of "self" onto.

It is not self/ego, because there is no actual self/ego, just an idea projected onto some physical and mental processes.

And that is what Yogachara says as well.

If you do not believe me go read some Vasubandhu. Here is a taster: https://books.google.gr/books?id=bzBRDA ... ya&f=false

Yogachara even takes it one step further and says that ALL phenomena are merely projections of the mind.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 9443
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Observation = Ego?

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:37 pm

I'm still trying to understand what exactly the contention is in this thread. I don't think it's controversial to say that any school of Buddhism acknowledges an Imputed sense of "I".

Is the question whether or not one is identifying with this through observation?
His welcoming
& rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
Knowing the dustless, sorrowless state,
he discerns rightly,
has gone, beyond becoming,
to the Further Shore.

-Lokavipatti Sutta

User avatar
明安 Myoan
Former staff member
Posts: 2328
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am

Re: Observation = Ego?

Post by 明安 Myoan » Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:06 pm

Agreed with JD.

Also, it's possible for awareness to be non-discursive, but it's unfortunately easy to go astray, just from lack of familiarity. A teacher (or at least a positive intention) will help us stay ahead of anxiety about experience and discernment.

Also, the importance of motivation is stressed in Buddhism generally. I find that checking my motivation often during the day makes it easier to decide what is germane to accomplishing that motivation, and what isn't. It also materially shows the difference in results when my motivation is more self-beneficial versus other-beneficial.
Last edited by 明安 Myoan on Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
With a heart wandering in ignorance down this path and that, to guide me I simply say Namu-Amida-Butsu. -- Ippen

The Fundamental Vow [of Amitabha Buddha] is just for such people as woodcutters and grassgatherers, vegetable pickers, drawers of water and the like, illiterate folk who merely recite the Buddha's name wholeheartedly, confident that as a result of saying "Namu Amida Butsu" they will be born into the western land. -- Master Hōnen

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 9443
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Observation = Ego?

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:13 pm

If the question is on whether or not one is reinforcing it through perception, I think we could argue that yes, absent Buddhist practice we are reinforcing the false imputation of "I". I mean this is pretty basic to most Buddhism isn't it?

Practice however is meant to deconstruct the identification with (among other skandha) that of perception.
His welcoming
& rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
Knowing the dustless, sorrowless state,
he discerns rightly,
has gone, beyond becoming,
to the Further Shore.

-Lokavipatti Sutta

User avatar
Grigoris
Site Admin
Posts: 20137
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Observation = Ego?

Post by Grigoris » Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:05 am

muni wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:00 am
Tirisilex wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:11 pm
I was meditating today and I observed a thought that arised it was "I see that" I'm making an identification here and it starts with "I" does this interject the ego (7th consciousness) because I use the identification of "I" or is it only the mind (6th consciousness) saying "this is observed" Does observing entangle with ego?
An example is been given by someone in a boat, very peacefully floating on the river. Then suddenly BAM!
Ouch! Another boat hits his boat. Immediately he reacts: hey you, can you not look out?! Then he sees the boat that hit his, is empty. But that reaction ( hey you…), that is ego. In this case could we say the observer observed by irritation, his own irritation, which was the object, thinking to be other?
The klesha are not ego. They are just moments of mind: akulacetasika. If they were ego then everybody would have the same ego (except for Arhats, Bodhisattvas and Buddhas), since we all experience the same cetasika.

So no, no ego there either.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

muni
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Observation = Ego?

Post by muni » Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:38 am

The klesha are not ego. They are just moments of mind akulacetasika. If they were ego then everybody would have the same ego as everybody (except for Arhats, Bodhisattvas and Buddhas) experiences the same cetasika.

So no, no ego there either.
Hi Greg,
I understand what is called ego in psychology is not what is meant in Buddhism. It could give the idea of being there a soul or idea of an independence. Such isn't.

However many Buddhist Masters are using the expression of ego clinging as exactly the illusion of an independent self, when they speak English. I cannot agree enough with you that such ego isn't at all and that is why they are guiding so. If ego was-is, there would be uncountable ones, as a changing chain.

Only I do not know if it is helpful to reject these words like ego clinging, meant in Buddhism as a sense of independent self, and still used by the Masters now. Would it be better to say ego-clinging, not just ego?

Tsoknyi Rinpoche uses it so to see clear in mind: https://tsoknyirinpoche.org/1429/the-fo ... ne-of-two/
May I be a guard for those without one,
A guide for all who journey on the road,
May I become a boat, a raft or bridge,
For all who wish to cross the water.

User avatar
Grigoris
Site Admin
Posts: 20137
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Observation = Ego?

Post by Grigoris » Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:24 am

I am going to say it one more time:

There is no ego.

There is an IDEA of an ego projected onto the five skhanda.

That is what we grasp at. The idea.

That is what we cherish: The idea.

That is what all the Buddhist teachers teach.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Grigoris
Site Admin
Posts: 20137
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Observation = Ego?

Post by Grigoris » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:42 pm

SN 22.59 PTS: S iii 66 CDB i 901
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
translated from the Pali by
Ñanamoli Thera
© 1993

Thus I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Benares, in the Deer Park at Isipatana (the Resort of Seers). There he addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five: "Bhikkhus." — "Venerable sir," they replied. The Blessed One said this.

"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'

"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...

"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...

"Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...

"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'

"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

"Is feeling permanent or impermanent?...

"Is perception permanent or impermanent?...

"Are determinations permanent or impermanent?...

"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?" — "Painful, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'

"Any kind of feeling whatever...

"Any kind of perception whatever...

"Any kind of determination whatever...

"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'

"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in determinations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.

"When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'"

That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were glad, and they approved his words.

Now during this utterance, the hearts of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from taints through clinging no more.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nymo.html
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests